Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated May 26, 2026
Ongoing
Updated May 4, 2026
Ongoing
Updated April 30, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 16, 2026
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2026
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama’s congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
Court Case
May 2026
National Security
Human Rights
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration’s Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration’s illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged “armed conflict” with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the ACLU is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Massachusetts
May 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs federal agencies to compile lists of U.S. citizens and transmit them to states before every election, directs the U.S. Postal Service -- an independent agency established by Congress -- to create a list of "approved" mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
Louisiana v. Callais (Callais v. Landry)
Whether the congressional map Louisiana adopted to cure a Voting Rights Act violation in Robinson v. Ardoin is itself unlawful as a gerrymander.
Missouri
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
Wise v. Missouri
In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Apr 2026
Capital Punishment
Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee
Tennessee plans to execute Tony Carruthers on May 21 even though they refuse to run a simple fingerprint comparison and DNA testing that could prove what Tony has been arguing for 30 years - that he is innocent of this crime and that Tennessee convicted and sentenced the wrong man to death.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
President Trump is attempting to undermine the promise of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. But the ACLU and partners are fighting to protect the rights of citizens that are plainly stated in the Constitution, federal statute, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court for more than a century. We’re arguing against the Trump administration in the Supreme Court and are confident we will win.
Mississippi
Dec 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi’s Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We’re suing because the current lines crack the Mississippi Delta and dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commission—an agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent—to require voters to show a passport or other citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in federal elections. If implemented, the Executive Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible Americans to register and vote and upend the administration of federal elections.
On behalf of leading voter registration organizations and advocacy organizations, the ACLU and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
All Cases
1,710 Court Cases
New York
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Khalil v. Trump
Whether a legal permanent resident of the U.S. can be arrested and detained on the basis of their political speech and advocacy.
Explore case
New York
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Khalil v. Trump
Whether a legal permanent resident of the U.S. can be arrested and detained on the basis of their political speech and advocacy.
Rhode Island
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts
On March 6, 2025, the ACLU; the ACLU of Rhode Island; Lynette Labinger, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Rhode Island; and David Cole filed a federal lawsuit against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), challenging a new requirement that all grant applicants certify that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, and a related prohibition on funding any projects that appear to “promote” such messages.
Explore case
Rhode Island
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts
On March 6, 2025, the ACLU; the ACLU of Rhode Island; Lynette Labinger, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Rhode Island; and David Cole filed a federal lawsuit against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), challenging a new requirement that all grant applicants certify that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, and a related prohibition on funding any projects that appear to “promote” such messages.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025
Racial Justice
National Education Association et al. v. US Department of Education et al
The National Education Association, the National Education Association-New Hampshire, and the Center for Black Educator Development filed a challenge in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education’s Feb. 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague Letter,” which announced that ED will treat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as unlawful and threatens to move swiftly to cut schools’ federal funding. ED’s actions violate due process and the First Amendment, as well as basic requirements for agency action.
Explore case
New Hampshire
Mar 2025
Racial Justice
National Education Association et al. v. US Department of Education et al
The National Education Association, the National Education Association-New Hampshire, and the Center for Black Educator Development filed a challenge in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education’s Feb. 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague Letter,” which announced that ED will treat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as unlawful and threatens to move swiftly to cut schools’ federal funding. ED’s actions violate due process and the First Amendment, as well as basic requirements for agency action.
Court Case
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Espinoza Escalona v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration to halt the transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.
Explore case
Court Case
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Espinoza Escalona v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration to halt the transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia’s insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.
Explore case
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia’s insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.